9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reynagreen2 sentences2021Asking whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime, we conclude that it does not and, . . . for the same reasons, we are convinced that the Apprendi-type error that occurred when the trial court made the age determination and imposed sentence . . . was harmless. " 290 Kan. at 682 . 2021Asking whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime, we conclude that it does not and, . . . for the same reasons, we are convinced that the Apprendi-type error that occurred when the trial court made the age determination and imposed sentence . . . was harmless. " 290 Kan. at 682 . | 1 | 6 |
Washington v. Recuencogreen2 sentences2020See Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (failure to prove an enhanced sentencing factor to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is an Apprendi-type error subject to harmless error review); Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681-82 ) (applying Recuenco, Neder, and Daniels framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless). 2020See Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (failure to prove an enhanced sentencing factor to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt is an Apprendi-type error subject to harmless error review); Reyna, 290 Kan. at 681-82 ) (applying Recuenco, Neder, and Daniels framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (applying constitutional harmless error standard to trial error). 2021See State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (applying constitutional harmless error standard to trial error). | 1 | 1 |
Morales v. Harrygreen1 sentence2020See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 562 U.S. 1014 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sotogreen1 sentence2014See 299 Kan. at 124 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 562 U.S. 1014 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). 2020See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 562 U.S. 1014 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). | 3 | 2010–2020 |
Milton v. Farwell, Warden
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 562 U.S. 1014 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). 2014Ed. 2d 35 [1999]); State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 532 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). | 2 | 2014–2020 |
Grandoit v. Physician Network, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Ed. 2d 35 [1999]); State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 681-82 , 234 P.3d 761 (2010) (applying Neder framework to find Apprendi-type error harmless), cert. denied 131 S. Ct. 532 (2010); State v. Daniels, 278 Kan. 53, 64-65 , 91 P.3d 1147 (noting decisions of United States Supreme Court have clarified that Apprendi errors are subject to harmless error review), cert. denied 543 U.S. 982 (2004). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.